KingMidget's Ramblings

Pull up a chair. Let's talk.


The California Senate passed legislation that would allow terminally ill people the option of seeking “life-ending medication.”  The legislation passed, according to the Sacramento Bee, “over passionate objections from Republicans who argued it devalues life.”  What’s odd?  Well, to me, I think this measure does nothing other than value life.


6 responses to “Odd

  1. TamrahJo June 5, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    So, give the full scoop – do they first have to be debt free, prove there are no influences upon them by those listed as beneficiaries on their life insurance/estate property before being allowed to receive the same kindness people who love their aging/ill/majorily injured pets are given freedom to do every day? –

    Sorry – interrupt this comment to go research of how many pet activists actively are opposed to the ‘putting to sleep’ option – when there is only suffering and no hope left – – last I researched – you can’t purchase much life insurance on pets and so, no one has to worry you’ll off them prematurely in order to get your beneficiary payday – – not true, with humans and any law passed buts up against the Life Insurance/Crime Investigation budgetary needs – – – IMHO – 🙂

    • kingmidget June 5, 2015 at 8:21 pm

      I did not read the bill itself, but this is from an article in the L.A. Times: The legislation includes safeguards against abuse, supporters say. It would require two physicians to confirm a patient’s prognosis of six months or less to live, as well as the patient’s mental competence to make healthcare decisions.

      The patient would have to make two oral requests to a physician for help in dying, at least 15 days apart, with witnesses to the requests. The medication would have to be self-administered. In addition, the bill would create felony penalties for coercing a patient into making a request or for forging a request.


      You raise some good points, but I think there are some pretty good restrictions in this legislation and that passed in Oregon that protects against the kinds of abuse you identify. The last thing I would want is that this be used for the wrong purposes, but I fundamentally believe that the last decision we should get to retain for ourselves is the moment when we die. To the extent we have any control over it.

      • TamrahJo June 5, 2015 at 8:44 pm

        I agree with your perspective – on the other hand, given all the ‘fail-safes’ and time frames, I will quote what my dad said when calling to schedule an appointment with a cancer specialist,
        “6 weeks from now? Hell, by that time I’ll either be better or I’ll be dead” – 🙂

      • kingmidget June 6, 2015 at 8:10 am

        I agree that there are some concerns about whether somebody is truly terminal, but I leave that decision to the individual and their medical providers. Because part of the equation also is quality of life. So, it’s really a year instead of six months, but is that year spent tied to machines with disappearing mental capacity. That’s the point for me, it’s not necessarily how many more days you have, it’s what quality of life does the individual have left.

      • TamrahJo June 6, 2015 at 8:12 am

        Yup. Im all for quality over quantity

      • kingmidget June 6, 2015 at 8:13 am

        And sadly, none of the end-of-life bills allow that to be part of the equation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: